What do you think?
Rate this book
The Frankenfood Myth: How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution
Describes how misguided activism and government policies are squandering potential advances in biotechnology.
- GenresScience
269 pages, ebook
First published August 1, 2004
55 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
February 4, 2023
An important book, but a bit difficult to read. It's somewhat repetitious in its main theme about the influences of public opinion driven by the media and activists, and by the regulatory agencies both domestic and foreign, upon the fear-inspired, non-scientific over-regulation of gene-splicing biotechnology. It is convincing, but frustrating. Despite repeatedly demonstrated safety, by keeping products developed this way out of the market, people die of starvation or disease.
June 16, 2012
In terms of scientific and technical readings, this book is easily 5 stars. The problem is that the author is preaching to the choir. The average consumer who protests and obsesses over genetically-modified food will not and cannot understand the entirety of this book.
However, in-between the technical aspects, there is plenty of useful information for the average consumer.
However, in-between the technical aspects, there is plenty of useful information for the average consumer.
July 14, 2024
AN ENVIROINMENTALIST PROTESTS AGAINST GM FOODS
The authors wrote in the Prologue to this 2004 book, "This volume analyzes the foibles, errors, and inconsistencies of current regulatory overreach in the context of biotechnology... Advances that represent great benefits for humankind have been delayed and possibly lost altogether. As a result, both our public and individual lives are diminished. Perhaps this volume will serve as a wake-up call to the deficiencies of current public policy and will chart a course to better prospects for the future."
They add, "In this volume, we dissect various aspects of public policy toward the new biotechnology: its roots...; its nurturing by media eager for stories about 'the tomato that ate Toledo'; and its complex relationship with culture and agriculture. Finally, we map out reforms that could salvage some production of food and pharmaceuticals." (Pg. 2)
They note that although critics fear so-called "super weeds," herbicide-tolerant canola, soybean, and wheat plants "have been produced with conventional breeding for more than twenty years, and no unmanageable weed problems have been reported as a result." (Pg. 25)
They disagree that scientists have a special responsibility to "mold their research programs and findings to accommodate the public's fears, or that they should hold town hall meetings at which they explain the value of their work." (Pg. 35) The scientific community, they argue, "should not gracefully or passively tolerate activist campaigns who doctrines contradict empirical knowledge." (Pg. 51) However, they suggest that scientists with "mainstream views have a particular obligation to expose and debunk the misrepresentations of their few rogue colleagues." (Pg. 224)
They charge that "environmental activist groups" such as Greenpeace "do not draw the line at proselytizing, lying, and demanding illogical and stultifying regulation or outright bans on product testing and commercialization." (Pg. 90) They reject as "largely uninformed opinions" survey respondents who want genetically modified foods labeled (Pg. 125), and assert that mandatory labeling would not achieve its goals. "If enough people really want to avoid gene-spliced foods, niche markets will arise, as they have for kosher, halal, and organic products." (Pg. 131-132)
Opinionated, this is still a thought-provoking book to counter some of the claims and criticisms of the anti-GMO crowd.
The authors wrote in the Prologue to this 2004 book, "This volume analyzes the foibles, errors, and inconsistencies of current regulatory overreach in the context of biotechnology... Advances that represent great benefits for humankind have been delayed and possibly lost altogether. As a result, both our public and individual lives are diminished. Perhaps this volume will serve as a wake-up call to the deficiencies of current public policy and will chart a course to better prospects for the future."
They add, "In this volume, we dissect various aspects of public policy toward the new biotechnology: its roots...; its nurturing by media eager for stories about 'the tomato that ate Toledo'; and its complex relationship with culture and agriculture. Finally, we map out reforms that could salvage some production of food and pharmaceuticals." (Pg. 2)
They note that although critics fear so-called "super weeds," herbicide-tolerant canola, soybean, and wheat plants "have been produced with conventional breeding for more than twenty years, and no unmanageable weed problems have been reported as a result." (Pg. 25)
They disagree that scientists have a special responsibility to "mold their research programs and findings to accommodate the public's fears, or that they should hold town hall meetings at which they explain the value of their work." (Pg. 35) The scientific community, they argue, "should not gracefully or passively tolerate activist campaigns who doctrines contradict empirical knowledge." (Pg. 51) However, they suggest that scientists with "mainstream views have a particular obligation to expose and debunk the misrepresentations of their few rogue colleagues." (Pg. 224)
They charge that "environmental activist groups" such as Greenpeace "do not draw the line at proselytizing, lying, and demanding illogical and stultifying regulation or outright bans on product testing and commercialization." (Pg. 90) They reject as "largely uninformed opinions" survey respondents who want genetically modified foods labeled (Pg. 125), and assert that mandatory labeling would not achieve its goals. "If enough people really want to avoid gene-spliced foods, niche markets will arise, as they have for kosher, halal, and organic products." (Pg. 131-132)
Opinionated, this is still a thought-provoking book to counter some of the claims and criticisms of the anti-GMO crowd.
December 27, 2016
Makes a compelling case, but with a couple overkills (notably whipping out the the nazi/holocaust card to make a ridiculous comparison). It's saddening to see, that in the 12 years since the book was published, we have made hardly any progressive strides in GM development. Things have only gotten worse and more exacerbated, public attitudes are hostile and pseudoscientific as ever, and personal vicious attacks on the professionals working with GM technologies have become commonplace. This fascinating technology is tragically underused and impeded by regulation, NGOs, ill-informed consumers and media.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews